Senate votes to take back war powers from executive branch. What must happen next for this to go through? Does House need to pass also? Does Trump need to sign?
I have heard some people argue that the power lies with the President under A2S2. What would the founders say to this?

I heard Roger Stone yesterday screaming at Trump to fix or nix this deal. Said Trump (we) are getting railroaded by his "advisors" and that USMCA will codify censorship, destroy free speech, and increase government. Many parts were written by Apple/Google.
We dodged the GDPR bullet when Trump killed TPP but it has boomeranged right back and Trump is probably oblivious. Or worse...

He is a semi-famous comedian and has an outstanding podcast.
He is tight with Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Scott Horton, Ron Paul and all our liberty friends.
He is anti-PC, wicked sharp, and politically cunning.
He knows Mises and Rothbard better than millennials know their iPhones.
He is a millennial. The best damn millennial libertarian I have ever seen!

I agree Brian...please forward Swordsmyth's question to Rand if possible.
However I disagree on using that definition of Republic.
The defining feature of our Republic is that we are NOT a democracy; specifically, we have a Bill of Rights. And under no circumstances can these rights be violated by the tyranny of the majority (i.e. the 51%).

One more thing. Stephen Miller has proven himself on more than one occasion.
He needs a much bigger role than just immigration, critical as it may be.
And get rid of Kudlow. I like Larry a lot, I really do. But Trump needs Stockman ASAP. He needed him a long time ago.

Bring Roger Stone and Steve Bannon on as joint Chiefs of Staff. I don't know any two people who will fight harder for and be as trustworthy to Trump and the American people.
Then announce Rand Paul as your running mate for 2020.
Trump does this and we have a fighter's chance.

Which is why he must reject the budget. I don't buy all this garbage about how any time a politician says something they'd like to do on the campaign trail, it's automatically considered a "promise" which is almost inevitably broken.
But Trump swore last year he would never approve a budget like that again. He could not have been more explicit. And this could not be a more straightforward issue.
I believe Trump is doing his best, but he has yet to drain an iota of the swamp. Everything about the America First agenda is contingent on this.

I can't tell if enhanced_deficit is serious or trolling.
Even if Trump is really ready to fight back, he waited far too long.
He did nothing over the crippling censorship of conservatives/libertarians.
The day Alex Jones was banned he should have launched antitrust suits against every one of these companies.
Now he is ready to hit back "harder than the Democrats have ever been hit" with a significantly weakened online base.

https://hillreporter.com/roger-stone-suggests-trump-averted-a-coup-when-nick-ayers-declined-chief-of-staff-position-17387
Stone says Trump averted a coup with Nick Ayers. But the biggest news in this story:
Stone offered no evidence to support his assertion, though it comes on the heels of reports that President Trump and his advisers are considering not including Vice President Pence on the 2020 ticket.
​TRUMP/RAND 2020??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??

https://media.infowars.com/videos/a281e941-c4a5-43ec-85f2-3ef1722d81f6.mp4
Among other highlights:
John Kelly hung around to sabotage Trump and deliver him to Mueller
Nick Ayers is a quizling
Trump's lawyer Don McGahn was informant to Mueller
Meadows/Whitaker/Mulvaney have Trump's back
Globalists delivered threats to Trump during Bush funeral
If Trump declassifies, Obama and Clinton will go to jail
Economy is keeping Trump above water right now

https://www.quora.com/When-will-Trump-work-on-lowering-the-U-S-Public-national-debt/answer/Aaron-Brown-165
When will Trump work on lowering the U.S. Public (national) debt?
Most politicians lie about what they will do, but usually adhere to at least minimal standards of truth about historical facts. Trumpís claims about the past are far less reliable than the norm, which causes some people to mistakenly assume he lies about his future actions. By the standards of politics, Trump is an honest man about his intentions.
Trumpís statements and history make clear that he takes a financial professionalís view of debt. Debt is not a moral obligation of the borrower, itís a contract between a borrower and a lender, both of whom assume risk. Itís no different from a stock or any other financial security. If the borrower becomes unwilling or unable to make promised payments, thereís a renegotiation.
Most politicians talk as if US debt is a sacrosanct collective obligation, and act as if the debt never needs to be repaid. Neither view is true. There is no plausible scenario in which the US repays its debt. Congress cannot even agree to raise taxes to pay for current spending, much less to raise them so much higher debt can be repaid, not to mention meet the unfunded and contingent liabilities that are much larger than the official debt.

http://www.targetliberty.com/2018/12/is-yellow-vest-protest-really.html?m=1
Friday, December 7, 2018
Are the Yellow Vest Protests Really a Libertarian Revolution?
Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute emails:
Greetings Bob!
Just wanted to write you on your most recent piece on the "yellow vest" protests in France. It looks like you and I are the only two skeptical people in the world when it comes to this! From From David Duke to the labor left, it's all universal praise for this "people power" revolution in the streets of France. But as you pointed out:

The new MacBook Pros are ~20% slower than the previous generation when running Monte Carlo simulations and certain other parallel computations, even with increased RAM. This slowdown is a designed feature of their system.
Apple computers are worthless unless you use them purely for browsing.

Sometimes I wonder if his stance on the *current* tariffs situation is the libertarian principle which has the biggest hole in it.
I am not a historian on tariffs, so my insight is limited. But if I contrast today with when the North forced all those tariffs on the South leading up to the Civil War, it seems like two radically different situations.
The Lincoln tariffs (or whatever they should be called) were a pure play to raise money for the empire, correct? Disgusting, but it had nothing to do with the welfare of the citizens or protecting them from negative effects of other countries. The tariffs were not enacted to fight evil abroad, but to grow evil at home.
The Trump tariffs are not about the empire, they are about giving American citizens a level playing field. How are we ever supposed to get to free trade when we allow other countries to destroy us? Trump wants zero tariffs, he already offered it to the EU and they balked. Are we supposed to sit back and just pray that China et al will eventually show us mercy and kindness, after all these years/decades?
Ron talks about the debt and the financial system and how we have to steer it to fail gracefully (i.e. transition away from it while accepting some short-term pain) in order to avoid a long-term catastrophe. Why can't the same be said about today's tariffs? Why can't we deal with some short-term difficulties to correct a diseased trade relationship?